Works › Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium.FemaleMan©_Meets_OncoMouse™
Work #1108 · Late period

Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium.FemaleMan©_Meets_OncoMouse™

Donna Haraway's 1997 study — feminism, technoscience, and the politics of representation in the late twentieth century

Donna Haraway · 1997 · English · Cultural-historical study of technoscience

Tradition: Science and technology studies / Feminist technoscience studies

Haraway's 1997 study of late-twentieth-century technoscience — FemaleMan and OncoMouse as figures of corporate-cultural production

Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium.FemaleMan©_Meets_OncoMouse™ (1997) is Haraway's wide-ranging study of late-twentieth-century technoscience. The book uses two figures — Joanna Russ's science-fiction FemaleMan and Harvard's patented genetically-engineered OncoMouse — to organise sustained reflection on the corporate-cultural production of the techno-scientific world. Major essays treat genome science, the politics of race in the new genetics, fetal photography, and the proper feminist response to bio-capitalism.

Author

Editions cited

  • Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium.FemaleMan©_Meets_OncoMouse™: Feminism and Technoscience (Routledge, 1997)
Compare this work

School Embodiments

Feminism · 25%
Critical Theory · 15%
Transhumanism / Posthumanism · 15%
Dialectical Materialism · 10%
Postmodernism · 10%
Intersectionality · 10%
Cybernetics · 10%
Feminism 25%

Major late-1990s feminist-technoscience-studies statement.

"Technoscience is the proper object of feminist analysis at the end of the second millennium." (Modest_Witness)
Critical Theory 15%

Critical-theoretical engagement with corporate-cultural production of techno-scientific knowledge.

"OncoMouse is a patented being; what kind of being can be patented is one of the central questions of late-twentieth-century life." (Modest_Witness)
Transhumanism / Posthumanism 15%

Major contribution to posthumanism — the displacement of the bounded liberal-individual subject.

"FemaleMan and OncoMouse are figures of the posthumanist subject; both are entirely human-fabricated, and both are real." (Modest_Witness)
Dialectical Materialism 10%

Continued socialist-feminist political tradition — bio-capitalism as proper topic.

"The patent on OncoMouse is the privatisation of life as the appropriation of land was the privatisation of nature in early modernity." (Modest_Witness)
Postmodernism 10%

Post-structuralist-rhetorical analysis of technoscientific narrative-production.

"There is no neutral 'modest witness' — every observer is in some position, some embedding, some bodily location." (Modest_Witness)
Intersectionality 10%

Race, gender, species inseparable in the new genetics and bio-capitalism.

"Race, gender, species — these are not separable variables; they are co-constituted in the very practice of technoscience." (Modest_Witness)
Cybernetics 10%

Cybernetic-informational frameworks remain central — but now in their late-twentieth-century corporate guise.

"Genome science is the conversion of life into information; the proper feminist response is not to refuse the conversion but to politicise it." (Modest_Witness)

Internal Tensions

The book's strong critical claims about bio-capitalism have aged in mixed ways — defenders see prescient analysis of the genomic era, critics worry about specific predictions that have not held.

⧖

I. Time

The end of the second millennium — the late-1990s corporate-genomic moment.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Grain: Continuous Freedom: Non-Deterministic Traversability: Non-Linear Direction: Bi-directional Dimensionality: One
✦

II. Space

The corporate-laboratory-academic spaces of late-twentieth-century technoscience.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Curvature: Flat Dimensionality: Three Locality: Non-Local
◉

III. Matter

The patented genetically-modified materials — OncoMouse and beyond — of bio-capitalism.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Conservation: Conserved Dimensionality: Three Locality: Non-Local
◎

IV. Observer

The situated-feminist observer of late-twentieth-century technoscience.

Attributes
Time Instance: Single Space Instance: Single Knowledge Extent: Partial Knowledge Retainment: Partial Physicality: Embodied Agency: Active Number: Plural Metaphysical Agency: None
⚡

V. Energy

The corporate-bio-political energies of the second-millennium moment.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Conservation: Conserved Dispersibility: Irreversible
⧉

VI. Information

The genomic-informational content of corporate technoscience.

Attributes
Ontological Status: Substantival Cosmic Conservation: Variable Personal Conservation: Variable Granularity: Discrete

Personas with the nearest attribute fingerprint

Historical figures whose own classification on the same six-dimensional grid lands closest to this work's. Computed by attribute-agreement on coordinates both address.

80%
Carneades
8/10
77%
Anaximander of Miletus
23/30
77%
Epicurus
23/30
76%
Thales of Miletus
22/29
74%
Derek Parfit
25/34
74%
Hilary Putnam
25/34

Computed school proximity

The work's attribute fingerprint scored against all schools using the same quiz scorer. Useful as a sanity check on the hand-curated embodiments above.

43%
Cosmopolitanism
19/26
37%
Modal Realism
19/26
37%
Atomism
19/26
36%
Effective Altruism
19/26
34%
Virtual Realism
18/26
34%
Pragmatism
19/26
34%
Empiricism
19/26
34%
Humanism
19/26

How Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium.FemaleMan©_Meets_OncoMouse™ resolves each dilemma

31 resolved positions across 4 dimensions, including 6 distinctive where the majority of schools go the other way · 26 unaligned.

Each dimension is sorted so minority positions come first. Mainstream positions are folded into an expandable list.

Time · 9 dilemmas · 3 distinctive

Persistence, the future, and the direction of becoming.

Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (31/202)
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
The heat death of the universe — entropy maxed out, no further work possible — is among the more sobering implications of mainstream physics. Whether it is structurally inescapable depends on what kind of finitude the cosmos has.
Both time and matter are unbounded; 'running out' is misframed.
On this view, the cosmos has neither a temporal horizon nor a material exhaustion point. The framing of running out presupposes bounds that the cosmos doesn't have. Energy gradients perpetuate; new configurations emerge; the categories that make heat-death scary don't apply at the cosmic scale.
Roads not taken Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing. (47%) · Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional. (26%) · The cosmos has bounds; heat death is a real horizon. (12%)
Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (31/202)
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Whether we can grow our way out of resource constraints — or whether the cosmos sets limits the economy ultimately must obey — depends on what kind of finitude matter has.
Resources are practically inexhaustible on cosmic scales; terrestrial limits are engineering.
On this view, matter and time are both unbounded at the largest scales. Terrestrial resource limits are real engineering and political constraints but not metaphysical ones; the cosmos can in principle support whatever expansion intelligence is capable of.
Roads not taken Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time. (47%) · The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us. (26%) · Resources are finite in the strict sense; living well requires accepting the limit. (12%)
Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (31/202)
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
If we owe future people a habitable planet and the material means to flourish, and the cosmos is bounded in ways that make those obligations impossible at some scale, the obligation and the possibility come apart. Where they come apart turns on what kind of finitude we live in.
Both time and matter are unbounded; we cannot in principle owe more than is possible.
On this view, the cosmos has the resources to support whatever flourishing future generations are capable of, given sufficient time and intelligence. The impossibility concern is misplaced; the real questions are about trajectories and choices, not about resource ceilings.
Roads not taken Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide. (47%) · The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on. (26%) · The cosmos is bounded; our obligations to future generations are bounded with it. (12%)
3 mainstream positions
Do you really choose? The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it. 69% Are addicts responsible for their addiction? The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real. 69% Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do? An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible. 69%
3 unaligned
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them? Schools split: 47% / 32% / 17% — How much weight do future people deserve? Schools split: 47% / 32% / 17% — Is regret rational? Schools split: 47% / 32% / 17% —
Matter · 7 dilemmas, all mainstream
Is the world created from nothing? Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance. 55% Is the physical world fully real? Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting. 55% Does matter have intrinsic moral standing? Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good. 55% What is money? Money is a real institution with intrinsic features. 54% What is a nation? A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character. 54% What makes someone male or female? Sex is a real biological kind with given content. 54% Should we edit the human germline? Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given. 54%

Observer · 37 dilemmas · 3 distinctive

Mind, agency, and the knower's relation to the known.

Distinctive · only 13% of schools agree (27/202)
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Pancomputationalism, Planck-scale quanta, simulation theory and Kabbalistic letter-mysticism all say yes — but for very different reasons. The rest of the atlas says no.
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
On this view, the world is at bottom discrete and law-governed, with no metaphysical agency above or behind the substrate. Reality reduces to bits or their physical analogues; the continuous appearance of fields and flows is coarse-graining over discrete underlying structure.
Roads not taken No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure. (44%) · No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure. (37%) · Yes — but divinely-discrete: divine letters, momentary cognitions, atomistic theism. (6%)
Distinctive · only 13% of schools agree (27/202)
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Whiteheadian actual occasions, Buddhist moments of mind, Kabbalistic letter-cognitions, IIT phi-units — or the unbroken Jamesian stream? The atomism of experience cuts across naturalism and theism alike.
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
On this view, experience comes in discrete units defined by the substrate: information-theoretic phi-units, computational frames, discrete neural events. There is no further metaphysical agency that knits them; the appearance of a stream is the way many discrete events present to introspection.
Roads not taken No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness. (44%) · No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time. (37%) · Yes, theistic atomism — actual occasions, divine letters, momentary cognitions. (6%)
Distinctive · only 13% of schools agree (27/202)
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Engrams and traces — or continuous re-narration each time you remember? The cognitive-science debate has a theological cousin: divine memory holding each hair, or the ancestors' continuous remembering.
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
On this view, memory is the readout of discrete information stored in the substrate: engrams, synaptic weights, file-like records. Reconstruction at retrieval is real but secondary; without the stored bits there would be nothing to reconstruct from.
Roads not taken Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed. (44%) · Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams. (37%) · Stored — in divine memory's discrete particulars, or in karmic-record units. (6%)
15 mainstream positions
When does a person begin? A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence. 54% What is marriage? Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make. 54% Can prayer for someone far away affect them? Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for. 49% Are coincidences ever more than coincidence? Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer. 49% What is our place in nature? Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform. 48% Should we colonize space? Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship. 48% Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination? Genetic modification is cultivation by other means. 48% Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom? The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems. 46% Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless? Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical. 46% Does prayer change God's mind? If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next. 46% Are the dead morally present to the living? Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present. 44% Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans? Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind. 32% Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious? Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration. 32% What happens to "you" when you die? Death is genuinely the end. 30% Could an AI have a mind that matters? No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain. 30%
19 unaligned
Can a civilization recover from collapse? Schools split: 66% / 17% / 8% — Could causation work backwards? Schools split: 68% / 17% / 8% — Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces? Schools split: 32% / 28% / 17% — Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally? Schools split: 50% / 29% / 12% — Does history have a direction or meaning? Schools split: 37% / 23% / 19% — Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally? Schools split: 66% / 17% / 8% — How is knowledge of reality produced? Schools split: 25% / 17% / 13% — If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived? Schools split: 36% / 29% / 14% — Is environmental damage ever truly permanent? Schools split: 66% / 17% / 8% — Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge? Schools split: 32% / 28% / 17% — Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal? Schools split: 15% / 14% / 4% — Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it? Schools split: 68% / 17% / 8% — Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us? Schools split: 68% / 17% / 8% — Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married? Schools split: 36% / 29% / 14% — Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed? Schools split: 65% / 16% / 10% — Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it? Schools split: 32% / 28% / 17% — What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize? Schools split: 44% / 16% / 14% — What makes someone the same person over time? Schools split: 36% / 29% / 14% — Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species? Schools split: 40% / 28% / 14% —
Information · 4 dilemmas, all mainstream
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back? — — Does deleting your data online destroy something real? — — Is anything truly lost when someone forgets? — — Is forgiveness ontologically possible? — —
← #1107 Simians, Cyborgs, and Women All Works #1109 When Species Meet →